They used a MASSIVE BOMBARDMENT as a diversion - and you're saying that no-one was injured?

Yes I've heard of them - they're as well trained as the average British soldier. The problem with the US armed forces is that they rely very heavily on technology - and this eats into the training budget. The result is that, without "overwhelming firepower", the average US soldier has no clear idea what to do when they meet the enemy.

The supply convoy is a case in point - the soldiers came under fire, panicked and drove further into the town - and then made a stand! Instead they should have pushed their way out bringing the battle to the enemy. And what was all this rubbish over Jessica Lynch? "She's only a clerk" people said. No she was a soldier, first and foremost - she should have been able to hold her with any 'combat unit'. If she couldn't - it meant that she wasn't trained well enough - and shouldn't have been out of boot camp.

No - but we're talking about the opinion of virtually every British officer, from the blokes on the ground to those in the air...
.
.
.
.
.
You know, when 9/11 occured, and the US went to war with Afghanistan, <u>I was fully in support of the action.</u>
The US *HAD* been attacked by a group being sheltered by the Afghanistan government. The US did seek a diplomatic solution, it asked for OBL to be handed over and for the Al'Qaida camps to be dismantled. These were very reasonable demands and Afghanistan had 6 weeks to comply (a very long time in the wake of an actual attack).
Declaring the war then, was a just action.

But after the war was declared, the US lost its legitimacy by the way in which it conducted the war. The "overwhelming firepower" technique was employed using cluster bombs, air-fuel bombs and other indiscriminate ordinance. Approximately 4,000 civilians died as a result (greater than the number killed in the 9/11 attack) and more than 20,000 injured in the 6 week campaign. And people are *still* dying and suffering as a result of that action. This 'one battle tactic suits all' ideology is wrong and undermines the support of the international community at large.

If we had gone to Iraq with the express purpose of removing Saddam Hussein and made sure that we did not use this "overwhelming firepower coupled with indiscriminate ordinance" technique - this war *would have* had my full backing (provided of course, that we also had no plans to set up a puppet regime and interfere with the social, political and economic fabric of the country). Because *then* you could have called it a just war - rather than the illegitimate war that it ended up being.

[ 04-15-2003, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Now now, we can talk, but let's just make sure we keep the handbags away from each other, ok? :D

There is no argument that our war against terrorism started long before you joined.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
You keep comparing the UK veteran troops, who as you admit had years of experience oppressing the Irish.

Timber.. You may have been upset by the thread and in my opinion rightly, tho' I did laugh. However this comment I find uncalled for. I will not start an argument on this thread or even this forum on the terrorist actions in Britain unless you wish too. However I am MORE than willing to discuss (put you right [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] ) in another thread, perhaps in GD forum (?).

However to lash out this way was uncalled for and below your usual high standards. Yes you have hit a raw nerve, at least with me. Please lets keep this forum on Iraq, Syria, and Turkey ECT, not Britain.

[img]graemlins/hippysmile.gif[/img]

[ 04-15-2003, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

In that case you can be fair and add America as an off-limits to discussion as well.

This whole thread is uncalled for.

France too then...please. ;)

Thread title... America at war with Iraq

I am more than happy to discuss this issue, but I would hate for Timber to be unable to counter my compelling arguments before it was closed down [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

However maybe Donut should have put a wink on the top of the thread. I do admit to laughing, but it was hurtfull.

<font color="#ffccff">Much as it galls me, I have to agree, terrorists are terrorists wether Irish or Arab or Asian or other..

But I still think it is assinine to try and compare any two seperate actions, especially from your comfy safe hidey hole in front of your computer screen. Put yer ass on the line and THEN tell people how to handle the situation.</font>

So basicly, if one does not actually visit the place that the action occurs in, one has no business asking questions or bringing up the subject? Would seem to me that you would then have to keep your trap shut unless it happened in your own town....

;)

Many of us have and it may give our evaluation of a given scenario a bit more accuracy, but it does not give our opinions greater value than those without that experience.